In the next place, with regard to the declaration
of Jesus against rich men, when He said, “It is easier for a
camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter
into the kingdom of God,”43674367 Cf. Matt. xix. 24. Celsus alleges
that this saying manifestly proceeded from Plato, and that Jesus
perverted the words of the philosopher, which were, that “it was
impossible to be distinguished for goodness, and at the same time for
riches.”43684368 Cf. Plato, de
Legibus, v. p. 743. Now who is
there that is capable of giving even moderate attention to
affairs—not merely among the believers on Jesus, but among the
rest of mankind—that would not laugh at Celsus, on hearing that
Jesus, who was born and brought up among the Jews, and was supposed to
be the son of Joseph the carpenter, and who had not studied
literature—not merely that of the Greeks, but not even that of
the Hebrews—as the truth-loving Scriptures testify regarding
Him,43694369 Cf. Matt. xiii. 54, Mark vi. 2, and John vii.
15. had read Plato, and being pleased with the
opinion he expressed regarding rich men, to the effect that “it
was impossible to be distinguished for goodness and riches at the same
time,” had perverted this, and changed it into, “It is
easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich
man to enter into the kingdom of God!” Now, if Celsus had
not perused the Gospels in a spirit of hatred and dislike, but had been
imbued with a love of truth, he would have turned his attention to the
point why a camel—that one of animals which, as regards its
physical structure, is crooked—was chosen as an object of
comparison with a rich man, and what signification the “narrow
eye of a needle” had for him who saw that “strait and
narrow was the way that leadeth unto life;”43704370 Cf. Matt. vii. 14. and to this point also, that this animal.
according to the law, is described as “unclean,” having one
element of acceptability, viz. that it ruminates, but one of
condemnation, viz., that it does not divide the hoof. He would
have inquired, moreover, how often the camel was adduced as an object
of comparison in the sacred Scriptures, and in reference to what
objects, that he might thus ascertain the mean582ing of the Logos
concerning the rich men. Nor would he have left without
examination the fact that “the poor” are termed
“blessed” by Jesus, while “the rich” are
designated as “miserable;” and whether these words refer to
the rich and poor who are visible to the senses, or whether there is
any kind of poverty known to the Logos which is
to be deemed “altogether blessed,” and any rich man who is
to be wholly condemned. For even a common individual would not
thus indiscriminately have praised the poor, many of whom lead most
wicked lives. But on this point we have said enough.